The High Court has temporarily halted enforcement of the National Transport and Safety Authority’s (NTSA) automated instant traffic fines system, granting a reprieve to motorists opposing the scheme and dealing the transport regulator a setback.
The court issued a conservatory order stopping the issuance, generation, or enforcement of automated traffic penalties pending the determination of a constitutional petition challenging the system.
The orders restrain NTSA, its Director-General, and other agencies involved in the system from “issuing, generating, demanding or enforcing instant or automated traffic penalties produced through algorithmic or other automated decision-making systems.”
The court further barred the implementation of the Instant Fines Traffic Management System until the matter is heard inter partes.
The case was filed by civil society organisation Sheria Mtaani and advocate Shadrack Wambui, who argue that the digital penalties scheme violates constitutional safeguards governing criminal justice, fair administrative action, and data protection.
Police officers and officials from the National Transport and Safety Authority inspect vehicles at a roadblock in Lukenya, Machakos county on March 27, 2024.
Photo credit: Evans Habil | Nation Media Group
According to the petition, the automated enforcement model fundamentally alters how traffic offences are detected, prosecuted, and punished in Kenya.
“The impugned notice purports to introduce a nationwide enforcement regime that fundamentally alters the manner in which criminal liability for traffic offences is determined, enforced, and penalized in Kenya,” the petition states.
The NTSA system automatically detects traffic violations, sends motorists notifications via SMS, and requires payment of fines within seven days through a commercial banking network.
Failure to pay within the stipulated period attracts interest and blocks motorists from accessing NTSA services until the fines are cleared.
But the petitioners argue the system operates without human intervention and imposes penalties before motorists are given a chance to challenge the alleged breach of road traffic rules.
“The system automatically detects traffic violations and issues notifications via SMS to motorists,” the petition states, adding that it operates “without human intervention.”
The petition contends that such automated decision-making exposes motorists to financial and legal consequences without procedural fairness.
“Motorists are required to accept the correctness of an automated accusation and pay a financial penalty without any meaningful opportunity to interrogate the decision-making process,” the petition says.
The applicants also argue that traffic offences are criminal in nature and must be handled within the established legal process involving investigation, prosecution, and determination by a court.
They claim the NTSA system effectively bypasses the constitutional mandate of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions by determining violations and imposing penalties administratively.
In addition, the petition raises concerns about transparency in the handling of fines.
It states that the notice directs motorists to pay penalties through a commercial bank instead of established judicial channels or statutory public funds, raising questions about accountability and management of public revenue.
The court also directed that KCB Bank Kenya be joined in the proceedings as an interested party. The matter will be mentioned on April 9 to give directions on the expedited hearing of the case.
The development came a day after three other petitions were filed challenging the legality of the system.
The number of constitutional petitions challenging the newly launched automated instant traffic fines system has since risen to four after three more cases were filed in court, intensifying the legal battle over the controversial enforcement framework.
The petitioners, Center for Litigation Trust, Levi Munyeri, and Kennedy Mutwiri, argue that the petition was rolled out without adequate public participation and consultation with motorists.
Center for Litigation Trust also argues that the system unlawfully collects motorists’ data and threatens the constitutional right to privacy.
In its petition, the organisation states that the Constitution protects citizens from unnecessary intrusion into personal affairs.
“Every person has the right to privacy, including the right not to have information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed,” the petition states.
The petitioner argues that although traffic monitoring aims to improve road safety, the state must still respect constitutional safeguards governing personal data and surveillance.
“Whereas the Instant Fines Management System is designed to improve efficiency, the state cannot pursue traffic management in a manner that renders privacy rights illusory,” the petition states.
According to the affidavit supporting the suit, the automated framework collects and processes motorists’ data through surveillance technology without demonstrating compliance with the Data Protection Act.
The petitioner says the system is “surveillance heavy and automated in nature but has not been aligned with the Data Protection Act, 2019 which regulates the processing of data to protect individuals’ privacy.”
